Yeah, more that... though my backlogs not huge compared to some.
But most of my none rts / city builder games are RPGs and they're not exactly filler games to pass the time between other games...
Plus choosing one of them to play is an absolute nightmare.

I could see this happening to me, especially in this genre. I'd tackle it like this:

1) If I'm really interested in a series and its story I'd go through them in order - HOWEVER if I'm interested more in the gameplay of a series with a "conjoined" story I'd probably go with the one I most wanted to play. I did this recently with Van Helsing 2 - I liked the setting of the second game (more steampunk) and didn't really expect a deep engaging story so I just played the second.

2) If I think a later game in a series will "take away from" playing an earlier game, that is also regarded as a classic which I want to play, I'll play them in order. So let's say "Part 2" is a vast improvement in every respect over "Part 1" but Part 1 is something I know is also a fantastic game that I'd love to play - I'll probably play them in order because sometimes, it's not easy to go home again.

3) This I think fits your situation the best - a series where you worry about "burn out" - I'd go with the game I find to have the most features I think are interesting - especially with something like a city builder. It's funny you mention Anno, because I've recently wanted to give this one a shot. While I think I'd like the setting (years) of the earlier games (16th - 17th Centuries) clearly I like the look and implementation in the latest game (pardon me if I screw up the year - but I think it's 1701) "the best."

I did this same game about a year ago when I finally decided to give the X series a shot. I went with the third game, but not the standalone expansion. I should have waited a year because they showed up on GoG LOL ;) In my case, the only reason I wish I had started earlier is because I've heard the second game has a solid tutorial (which the third game lacks) but all things equal if I were in your shoes with those games, I'd put my time into the one that has features that are most appealing to me.

I DO also like that suggestion of playing each one for a few hours and seeing which one clicks - but if I had just said that I wouldn't get to make my huge post above ;)

Na man it is not like that, after playing the best one you will want more.Sure the others won't be as good, but it is better than playing the crap first and being put off by it for the whole thing. For example if you play UFO:Aftermath first, you'll say it is crap, how can the other 2 be any good. But if you play Aftermath first, you'll be so impressed that you want to try the other two. Usually it is pretty easy, like don't play Master of Orion 3 first...but if you really have a hard time deciding then it doesn't really matter, does it?

I will play games in release order, but will not generally play games in the series back to back unless the next game directly continues the same story.

That's a really good question. Normally, I'd go with the order in which it was published chronologically. If you start with the best one, then the others might be a let-down. If you start with the worst, then you might not have the stomach to continue.

Here are two suggestions on playing them in the order they were published (and don't have some sort of story arc.)

1) With each edition, try a different strategy/attitude (explorer, conqueror, dictator, philanthropist, capitalist, etc.)

or

2) (What I would do:) Play just one edition start to finish, then put the series away for a while and come back to it after indulging in other backlogged game(s) of a dissimilar genre so you don't run the risk of getting bored with the series.

Heh


:P


It's been years since I played Minesweeper... Solitaire used to be more my game though (and I was really good at it for a while, I might even still have a screenshot of my highest score floating around somewhere)
I suppose I could do that... but other than RTS, City Builders and 4X (which are all quite similar anyway) and RPGs I'm not into a lot of other genres of games... I play the odd FPS but I'm so out of practice with those that I suck these days. I do enjoy puzzle games, but don't own many. Platformers I only tend to like if they're really good (a platformer with bad controls or physics is worse than useless)
I should probably pick Apotheon up again as I was really enjoying it until I just stopped playing.
Of course, I should finish the first Anno game too, so that I could move onto the next one in time...

Or play some solitaire, if you can't make up your mind! ;-P